Last chance to have say on council reorganisation plans in Surrey
Two unitary authorities
SCC, Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) and Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) are backing a plan for two new unitary authorities.One would be in the east, merging the areas of Elmbridge, Mole Valley, Epsom & Ewell, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge, and the other would be in the west, combining Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Runnymede, Woking, Guildford and Waverley.SCC, EBC and MVDC argue that having two councils would save money, provide services more simply and effectively, and be a fairer way of dividing up the county.Those against this model say the new authorities would be less democratically accountable, more remote - leading to a loss of local knowledge - and would be worse for Surrey economically.
Three unitary authorities
The other nine borough and district councils want to see Surrey split into three new unitary authorities.Under this plan, Surrey Heath, Woking, Guildford and Waverley would be in the west; Mole Valley, Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge would be in the east; and Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge would be in the north.The nine councils have said that having three authorities would lead to greater economic growth, help to maintain local identities and be able to withstand financial shocks.Opponents say that three unitary authorities would be less financially resilient and mean much higher costs, including when it comes to splitting up how services like adult and children's social care are provided.
Concerns about debt
Overshadowing the whole process is the debt owed by councils like Woking, which declared itself effectively bankrupt in 2023, and Spelthorne, with the amount across Surrey estimated to be more than £5bn.It has led to concerns about the financial sustainability of the new unitary authorities.There have been calls to write off the debts before the devolution plans move forward.On 9 June Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told the Commons that there was no proposal for this to happen, but that the government accepted that councils like Woking have "significant unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety".
What happens next?
The government consultation will finish at 17:00 BST on Tuesday.Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution Jim McMahon has said he will consider all the different views and the results will be used as to assess the merits of the different proposals.A decision on the final plans is due to take place by the end of 2025.If approved, legislation will be passed to allow the changes and elections for new shadow unitary councils will be held in May 2026, with a view for the new councils to start in May 2027.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpeg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C66%2C0%2C65%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
What next for social media ‘martyr' Lucy Connolly after leaving prison?
Lucy Connolly is out of jail. She was one of about 1,800 arrested for offences during riots last summer in the wake of the Southport murders. Connolly, from Northampton, was convicted and jailed for publishing 'threatening or abusive' material on social media including an incitement to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care.' Hers is one of the more high-profile cases and some activists have taken up her cause, claiming she has been a victim of 'two tier' policing, harsh sentencing, and restricted free speech. Her sentence was 31 months; a bid to reduce it was rejected by the Court of Appeal in May. Under current early release rules, she is allowed out on licence for the remainder of her sentence, having served 40 per cent. What did Connolly do wrong? Her supporters mostly concede that what she said was wrong, but many also minimise it as mere 'hurty words' for which nobody should be given a custodial sentence. There is also the suspicion in some quarters that the punishment was heavier because of political pressure; the prime minister said at the time that the full force of the law should be brought down on offenders. But her case was carefully examined at Birmingham Crown Court and at the Court of Appeal. The facts were not in dispute, she pled guilty, and the judges have considered the context and acted within the guidelines approved by ministers. What did she post on social media? The mother-of-three, who was working as a childminder at the time and is the wife of a Tory councillor, wrote a number of messages but attention focused on this X post that was later deleted: ''Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' While visible, it had been viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times. Four days earlier, Connolly had responded to a video shared online by Tommy Robinson, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them,' she wrote, adding a vomiting emoji. Five days after the Southport murders Connolly stated on social media, referencing an anti-racism demo: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Another message, on WhatsApp, read: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' Another message, sent later, was in response to the furore she'd caused. According to the Court of Appeal, in another message she said she intended to tell authorities she had been the victim of doxing and went on to say that if she got arrested she would 'play the mental health card'. Did she have a defence? According to the Court of Appeal: 'The stabbings of the children in Southport had put her into a rage. She said she felt hatred about the incident and the circumstances, not about race. She said she had taken the post down because she realised it was wrong. Later in the interview she said her tweets were not racial and she had no intention to cause hate or racial issues.' Is she a hero? To some, she is akin to Emmeline Pankhurst or Joan of Arc. Senior members of the Trump administration have raised questions about freedom of speech in the UK as a result of the treatment of those who sent messages and were subsequently convicted of public order offences. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, has lauded her in these terms: 'Welcome to freedom, Lucy Connolly. You are now a symbol of Keir Starmer's authoritarian, broken, two-tier Britain.' Kemi Badenoch has attacked the way the courts treated Connolly, going in hard on the two-tier charge: 'Lucy Connolly finally returns home to her family today. At last. Her punishment was harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting… meanwhile, former Labour councillor Ricky Jones called for protestors to have their throats slit. Charged with encouraging violent disorder, he pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury who saw his words as a disgusting remark made in the heat of the moment, not a call to action.' Connolly will have no shortage of media outlets, some highly sympathetic, on which to appear should she wish. What does Keir Starmer think? He thinks politicians should stay out of the courtroom, and has no regrets. He told the Commons in May: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts, and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. I am strongly in favour of free speech … but I am equally against incitement to violence against other people.' What will happen next? Another extended skirmish in Britain's endless and debilitating culture wars. Maybe that chap who took a brick to his testes during the disturbances will be the next contender for martyrdom.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Warning far-right has ‘hijacked' women's safety for political gain
Leading women's rights groups have warned that the far right movement has 'hijacked' the issue of women's safety for political gain. More than 100 organisations have written to prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to urge the government to stop far-right groups from 'weaponising' violence against women and girls (VAWG) for a 'racist, anti-migrant agenda'. It comes after weeks of far-right protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers across the country, with many participants claiming to be there under the banner of 'protecting' women and girls in their community. The letter states how in recent weeks, the organisations had seen 'vital conversations' about VAWG be 'hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda' that 'fuels division' and harms survivors. The groups have expressed concerns that the issue is being 'hijacked by people seeking to use women and girls' pain and trauma – and the threat of it – for political gain'. The letter, co-ordinated by End Violence Against Women Coalition, Women for Refugee Women, Hibiscus and Southall Black Sisters, read: 'Over recent weeks, people claiming to care about the 'safety of women and children' have left families, women and children living in temporary asylum accommodation afraid to leave their front door. 'They follow in the footsteps of the rioters who used the appalling murder of three young girls as an excuse to bring violence to our streets; with targeted attacks against migrant, minoritised and Muslim communities.' The statement was supported by frontline organisations including Rape Crisis England and Wales, Refuge and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. The groups have joined to 'refuse to let women's safety be turned into hate speech' and have told the government to act urgently to prevent misinformation spreading. They warned that they had seen MPs share false statistics about the nationality of perpetrators, and warned that ministers saying protestors have 'legitimate concerns' risks 'normalising and enabling the spreading of racist narratives by the far-right'. The organisations warn that false narratives reinforce 'damaging myths' about gender-based violence, such as that it primarily comes from strangers. They say the false picture allows perpetrators who harm women and girls 'to hide behind racial stereotypes and scapegoating', while hostile immigration policies put marginalised women and survivors in the UK at an 'even greater risk of harm'. 'The far-right has long exploited the cause of ending violence against women and girls to promote a racist, white supremacist agenda,' Andrea Simon, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said. 'These attacks against migrant and racialised communities are appalling and do nothing to improve women and girls' autonomy, rights and freedoms.' Andrea Vukovic, co-director of Women for Refugee Women, said the organisation had supported women in recent weeks that had fled war and persecution, and have been too afraid to leave their homes due to attacks on migrant and racialised communities. Selma Taha, executive director of Southall Black Sisters said: 'Attempts to weaponize VAWG through racist scapegoating of migrants not only distract from real solutions, but also deepen the marginalisation of Black, minoritised and migrant victim-survivors. 'The government, our public institutions, and the media must take responsibility for shaping an accurate, evidence-based narrative on immigration, and must end the normalisation of far-right misinformation in debates on immigration and VAWG.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'All acts of violence against women and girls are intolerable, so our upcoming VAWG Strategy will set out how we will protect the most vulnerable and halve these crimes in a decade. "At the same time, we know that people are concerned about the impact of illegal migration. That's why we are changing the law to deny registered sex offenders' asylum and we will do everything in our power to deport them from the UK."
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Arts venues should lose funds if they stifle free speech, says ex-minister
A former SNP cabinet minister has demanded arts bodies lose their public funding if they stifle free speech after the 'disgraceful' Kate Forbes cancel culture row. Fergus Ewing said the bid by Summerhall Arts to ban the deputy First Minister from an Edinburgh Festival Fringe venue was 'utter nonsense'. He also took a swipe at John Swinney for taking a week to condemn it. Speaking to the media on Tuesday, the First Minister said it was not 'appropriate' and there was 'no reason why Kate Forbes shouldn't be able to speak at any venue in Scotland'. Summerhall Arts effectively banned Ms Forbes, a devout Christian who opposed the SNP's gender self-ID plans, from returning after she appeared at a political discussion, before rowing back. Bosses set up a 'safe room' for artists and staff when she was in the building, after performers reported being 'terrified' of the 5ft 2in MSP. The arts charity, which was awarded £608,000 in public funds in January, apologised 'unreservedly' and said the booking was an 'oversight' which would not happen again. But after an outcry about censorship - which chimed with similar rows at the Edinburgh Book Festival and National Library of Scotland - Summerhall bosses backed down. Chief executive Sam Gough told the Mail: 'No one is banned from appearing on the stages.' Writing on X, Mr Ewing, who quit the SNP in June to stand for re-election in his Inverness and Nairn seat as an Independent, said: 'After a week of silence, our FM eventually gets round to support his DFM and criticise the disgraceful 'cancellation' of Kate Forbes by Summerhall Arts in Edinburgh. 'I have tabled a question to ask the Scottish Government if they will insist any arts body getting a grant must undertake to honour freedom of expression under the law, or else forfeit the grant and repay any amount paid 'Summerhall got bailed out with £600,000 of taxpayers' money - then 'cancelled' Kate Forbes because she was, in their eyes, a 'threat' to the safety of performers. 'What utter nonsense. But will the Scottish Government stamp it out? I doubt it. 'And why are millions of taxpayers' cash being dished out to those who would ban freedom of expression? 'I have countless constituents with special needs kids whose lives would be transformed for a fraction of these eye-watering amounts.' He ended his comments with a pointed quote from 1984 author George Orwell: 'The further society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.' Benny Higgins, chair of the Fringe Society for the last four years, yesterday said freedom of speech was 'crucial' to the festival He told the Herald: 'It's from the embers of the Second World War that this festival was formed. We must support freedom of expression. It's crucial. 'If we don't support freedom of speech within what is legal then we let ourselves down. 'It's something we have got to protect and cultivate. 'I think it would be sad if politicians were not be able to speak at the Fringe. Politics is part of the fabric of our society.' Lori Anderson, director of Festivals Edinburgh, added: 'The Edinburgh festivals - with their bold ideas, brave voices and global reach - are a celebration of possibility. They are spaces for challenge and debate.'
